Did You Know...

On the PBS program Inside Washington, the topic of Solyndra arose. I’ll give Nina Totenberg credit for at least addressing the issue (albeit laughably) and not suddenly clamming up in a fit of bias-induced laryngitis like some people did the other day over at MSNBC. However, Totenberg is of the opinion that there was absolutely nothing political about the decision process that culminated in $535 million taxpayer dollars being poured down the eco-friendly venture socialism port-o-pot.

Totenberg actually believed what was coming out of her mouth until Charles Krauthammer mentioned the timing of the layoffs, to which Totenberg essentially responded “well, except for that…”

In a world where politicians and political appointees direct “investments” using large amounts of money that isn’t theirs, the odds that these kinds of decisions don’t contain even a hint of politics are between incredibly slim and none, no matter who is in office. To paraphrase a famous quote about equality, “some government decisions are more non-political than others.” The more opportunities for favoritism offered, the more favoritism we’ll see, which is why the whole Department of Energy loan program was a bad idea.

It’s also worth mentioning that news of Joe Biden’s office becoming nearly orgasmic over taxpayer backing of Solyndra isn’t the best evidence that the loan was completely non-political either. You don’t force a politician to “think about baseball” unless something self-serving is in the works.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified to a House Committee on Thursday, and the veracity of his testimony earned a “three Pinnochios” rating from the Washington Post fact check. Why the need to bend the truth and make misleading statements over a totally honest non-political mistake that crosses presidential administration boundaries?